Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I do recognize the difference between individual arms ("Arms"), and Ordnance such as mounted cannons, missiles, etc. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear regarding ARMS. You can play word games all you like, but the two concepts have distinct meanings
Actually, arms and ammunition are both ordinances. Granted ordinances is broader than arms, I'm not saying they are synonymous. But they aren't distinct. All arms and weapons are ordinances.
It's like saying mammals are animals. It's a true statement. But not all animals are mammals.
But again, there is no Constitutionally authorized. Federal power to limit citizens from having ordinances either.
As for children, she's just that stupid.
Taz: Children have the right to buy guns or you're infringing on their rights because Children have full Constitutional rights
Taz: What do you mean you can't force a child to take a nap? They don't have full Constitutional rights!
She's an airhead
So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.
By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...
... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.
You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so
Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.
Wow, you showed that we're the extremists because we don't want Muslims to have nuclear weapons and we don't want children armed in schools.
And you think that shows we are the whack jobs. You seriously believe that.
I'm just laughing at you now
You brought up Muslims with nukes, you whack job hoe.
You're not an Archie Bunker, you're more an Edith dingbat, aren't you?
My favorite is still how you argued children can buy guns, but then you didn't get why children can't be forced to take a nap if they can buy guns. You're not the most colorful tulip in the garden, are you?
No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.
Just in case you can't read very well....
On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
Note is you're keying on that he says it's not an unlimited right, but you don't notice that his explanation is what most of us are saying.
For example, I am not saying that taking guns into government schools is a Constitutional right and no one I've seen has argued that. We've argued that it's bad policy to not allow CC holders to carry them. But that's not a Constitutional right argument.
Now the gun laws you want to put in place as a response to the shooting that would not in any way deter future shootings but would infringe on the right of honest citizens to defend themselves, those are unconstitutional.
This is how vacuously stupid you are. You don't even understand the discussion
Can you read?
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
Right. None of those are the point in contention.
felons: We all agree that felons since they have had their constitutional rights restricted from buying guns with DUE PROCESS can be prevented from buying guns legally. No one is disagreeing with you on that. Trump isn't, the NRA isn't, I'm not, Republicans are not libertarians are not. There is no disagreement.
mentally ill. Other than that you don't support the fifth amendment right to due process, there is again no disagreement. You can restrict the rights of mentally ill to buy guns as long as you follow due process to do so. The only difference again is that you don't support due process.
Sensitive places by schools. NO ONE has argued you have a Constitutional right to bring guns into a government school. I already explained this to you in the POST THAT YOU QUOTED where you asked me if I can read. We disagree with your leftist policy to prevent CC holders from doing so, but I haven't seen anyone argue it's a Constitutional right. Constitutional rights do come into your anti-gun policies, but the right to take guns into schools isn't one of those.
You just cited three examples of things that say exactly what I keep telling you. You don't understand the discussion. None of those are the point in contention
Actually the very conservative judge is making the point that firearms are and should be restricted from schools....in conflict with your dear leaders assertions allowing teachers to carry.
Mental illness can now be gauged by such indicators as social media. The present background checks do not take that into account.
My point is....the CDC should be given the opportunity to study and make reasonable recommendations on reasonable gun laws. The NRA is continually blocking that effort.
Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.
No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.
Read and Learn
The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns
OMG, you caught the SCOTUS not enforcing the Constitution??? I mean that only happens all the time.
They also allow asset forfeiture which violate the fifth amendment, illegal violation of your privacy with no warrants searching for drug money, Federal drug laws which violate the 10th amendment, campaign finance reform (sic) which violates the first, government taking property by force from one citizen and giving it to another when no public use is involved. They are infringing directly on the executive branches Constitutional power over immigration. The list goes on
The list goes on and on because the Progs realized they could subvert the legislative process by having Prog Judges write laws for them via court rulings.
I said Arab-Americans, not Muslims. You lose. Better luck next time.So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.
By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...
... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.
You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so
Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.
Wow, you showed that we're the extremists because we don't want Muslims to have nuclear weapons and we don't want children armed in schools.
And you think that shows we are the whack jobs. You seriously believe that.
I'm just laughing at you now
You brought up Muslims with nukes, you whack job hoe.
You're not an Archie Bunker, you're more an Edith dingbat, aren't you?
My favorite is still how you argued children can buy guns, but then you didn't get why children can't be forced to take a nap if they can buy guns. You're not the most colorful tulip in the garden, are you?
So the Constitution allowed people to have guns to guard against a tyrannical government that outguns them?Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.
Where it says you can keep and bear arms, not ordinance.
I never mentioned naps, you did. Strawman fail.The 2nd makes no age restriction on purpose. Or are you saying that the FFs didn't know what they were doing?You still on about your baby locked in the crib? What was that all about anyways, or ask me anything else, go ahead.Your concession has been duly noted.
You're a bizarre little thing.
So you ignoring my questions isn't you conceding, oh no, not at all.
When I say I'm not going to answer your questions until you answer mine, that's me conceding.
But you not answering my questions wasn't.
Damn you're dumb. In your case, vote how your husband tells you to. You're not smart enough to make up your own mind. Someone needs to do it for you
You argued that children have the same Constitutional rights as adults. That was YOUR argument, hoe, not mine. Man up to your crap.
Taz - Children have full Constitutional rights, so if you don't believe children should be able to take a gun to school, then you don't believe in the right to bear arms
Taz - what do you mean I'm saying children don't have to take a nap. I was being serious, what is this silly argument?
Yeah, that children can take guns to schools, that was your serious argument. You're a dumb bimbo beyond what I could make up
Children can buy guns, but you can't force them to take a nap. You mentioned that. You're an awful debater. I'm glad you're on the left's side
No. And?Where did I say that? You made that up for lack of a real argument.You're already letting the government restricts all kinds of weapons, and put an age restriction on the 2nd, thereby infringing on itMaybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.
No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.
Right, you mentioned that. You believe that to put down a 2 year old for a nap and illegally confine him to his crib is unlawful confinement and you're guilty of a crime.
You're a serious whack job. Actually, ding bat, the Constitution says no such thing that children have the rights of adults
Is it Constitutional for you to detain an adult against their will in your house?
So our Constitution purposely leaves us outgunned by a tyrannical government?where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.
She is arguing that if you admit don't have the right to weapons grade plutonium then you have no right to any gun other than what government decides to allow you to have. Yes, it is that stupid.
Basically, rather than protecting our rights as we mistakenly believe, Taz is informing us that the second amendment is actually a power of government to decide what guns we may or may not have
Don't forget to mention where we're all supposed to be as stupid as Taz and believe there's some direct corollary between firearms and radioactive materials.
I do recognize the difference between individual arms ("Arms"), and Ordnance such as mounted cannons, missiles, etc. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear regarding ARMS. You can play word games all you like, but the two concepts have distinct meanings
Actually, arms and ammunition are both ordinances. Granted ordinances is broader than arms, I'm not saying they are synonymous. But they aren't distinct. All arms and weapons are ordinances.
It's like saying mammals are animals. It's a true statement. But not all animals are mammals.
But again, there is no Constitutionally authorized. Federal power to limit citizens from having ordinances either.
As for children, she's just that stupid.
Taz: Children have the right to buy guns or you're infringing on their rights because Children have full Constitutional rights
Taz: What do you mean you can't force a child to take a nap? They don't have full Constitutional rights!
She's an airhead
I'm addressing the language in use at the time the Bill of Rights was written. i.e., in government inventory lists, guns, swords, individually held weapons were categorized as Arms; cannons and such were labelled Ordnance. And yes, the over all category is Ordnance, but I do think that the right of individuals to own and bear individually held weapons is distinctive
Because they couldn't find a good reason to be fighting in the Middle East. And haven't won a war since WWII, so didn't want to declare one.Also, while I oppose most of what we are doing for the war on terror, Republicans should demand a declaration of war for anywhere we're going rather than evading the real debate by funding it and not having any accountability for congress of where we're fighting and why
I said Arab-Americans, not Muslims. You lose. Better luck next time.So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.
Wow, you showed that we're the extremists because we don't want Muslims to have nuclear weapons and we don't want children armed in schools.
And you think that shows we are the whack jobs. You seriously believe that.
I'm just laughing at you now
You brought up Muslims with nukes, you whack job hoe.
You're not an Archie Bunker, you're more an Edith dingbat, aren't you?
My favorite is still how you argued children can buy guns, but then you didn't get why children can't be forced to take a nap if they can buy guns. You're not the most colorful tulip in the garden, are you?
As for children with guns, the 2nd doesn't disallow it.
Because they couldn't find a good reason to be fighting in the Middle East. And haven't won a war since WWII, so didn't want to declare one.Also, while I oppose most of what we are doing for the war on terror, Republicans should demand a declaration of war for anywhere we're going rather than evading the real debate by funding it and not having any accountability for congress of where we're fighting and why
Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.
It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment covers "Arms", which are personally held weapons. Bombs, missiles, cannons, etc. are "Ordnance" or "Artillery". Conflating the two is a tactic the anti-guns types use.
It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".
We had cannons as well.So the Constitution allowed people to have guns to guard against a tyrannical government that outguns them?Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.
Where it says you can keep and bear arms, not ordinance.
You DO realize that we won the Revolutionary War that way, right?
The government manages to do it, then so can anyone else. Or do you consider yourself dumber than the government?Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.
I'm withdrawing your right to answer questions again since you're ignoring every question you're asked, but to repeat. Explain how you get nukes without affecting the rights of other citizens to not do things like die of radiation poisoning.
You threw out having a large enough farm as if that explained where you'd get the radioactive material and how you'd store and utilize it
No. And?Where did I say that? You made that up for lack of a real argument.You're already letting the government restricts all kinds of weapons, and put an age restriction on the 2nd, thereby infringing on itNo, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.
Right, you mentioned that. You believe that to put down a 2 year old for a nap and illegally confine him to his crib is unlawful confinement and you're guilty of a crime.
You're a serious whack job. Actually, ding bat, the Constitution says no such thing that children have the rights of adults
Is it Constitutional for you to detain an adult against their will in your house?
But it's not just nukes that they have more than your guns, they have tanks, mortars, bombs, cruise missiles AA missiles... all kinds of things that you're not allowed to have. Nukes was just an example.So our Constitution purposely leaves us outgunned by a tyrannical government?where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.
She is arguing that if you admit don't have the right to weapons grade plutonium then you have no right to any gun other than what government decides to allow you to have. Yes, it is that stupid.
Basically, rather than protecting our rights as we mistakenly believe, Taz is informing us that the second amendment is actually a power of government to decide what guns we may or may not have
Don't forget to mention where we're all supposed to be as stupid as Taz and believe there's some direct corollary between firearms and radioactive materials.
Only if you assume the government is going to nuke its own territory, and leave itself governing nothing but empty, radioactive wasteland.
But then, you're probably stupid enough to actually think that.
Ok, forget nukes for a sec (that seems too difficult for some of you to grasp), what about AA missiles? Can a self-professed patriotic American like Sunni claims to be buy anti-aircraft missiles? What about cluster bombs?
